This is beyond words [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

dutchie

Dec 1st, 2004, 2:20 AM

Keeblergiant

Dec 1st, 2004, 11:58 AM

I don't see anything wrong with euthanizing babies...

lotrfan55345

Dec 1st, 2004, 3:12 PM

Isn't this (almost) the same as abortion? I'm sure people will do it for the same reasons... Like the ones Dutchie mentioned.

humanhybrid

Dec 1st, 2004, 10:07 PM

Are you a parent at 15, Death Rattle? Do you know what it's like to see you child, the child you carried for 9 months, dying in horrible agony? To see it suffocate slowly, because there is a massive hole in its heart, or to see it poison itself, because its intestines weren't fully grown? To see its skull bursting because the brain has grown too fast? What do you want to do then? Just let it suffer? Dutchie, Its not the person Death Rattle, Im convinced that it is a radical christian idea that infects one to disregard or completley forget the suffering of an individual. Yes life is precious but it becomes unbearable for those of us who experience accute pain in one form or other. It goes to show us how irrational a belief in a god can be. good day!

Death Rattle

Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:41 AM

Are you a parent at 15, Death Rattle? Do you know what it's like to see you child, the child you carried for 9 months, dying in horrible agony? To see it suffocate slowly, because there is a massive hole in its heart, or to see it poison itself, because its intestines weren't fully grown? To see its skull bursting because the brain has grown too fast? What do you want to do then? Just let it suffer?

I am a parent. Shut the fuck up about things you do not even begin to see a molecule of understanding of. :2fu: :Bott:

Oh - I understand.. another attempt to demonize the Dutch.. You must hate us terribly.. Why, I ask myself?
My opinion does not count because i have no kids? My sister was born with a whole in her heart and they operated and she is just fine. With all the modern technology there is no excuse for this and one more thing i am not attacking the dutch. If this were happening in the u.s. i would be just as outraged. :headbang:

Death Rattle

Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:45 AM

Dutchie, Its not the person Death Rattle, Im convinced that it is a radical christian idea that infects one to disregard or completley forget the suffering of an individual. Yes life is precious but it becomes unbearable for those of us who experience accute pain in one form or other. It goes to show us how irrational a belief in a god can be. good day!
First of all i am not christian or very religous at all. I do not go to church or even pray. You can read my post to dutchie for the rest of my response. Like i said to DN in another thread don't believe everything you read. I said Good Day! :2thumbs:

lotrfan55345

Dec 2nd, 2004, 3:25 PM

With all the modern technology there is no excuse for this

Notice that with all this modern technology kids are die ing naturaly at birth too... Some of them get mentally retarted because they didnt have enough oxygen in the tummy. Even with "modern technology"...

Keeblergiant

Dec 2nd, 2004, 4:28 PM

My opinion does not count because i have no kids? My sister was born with a whole in her heart and they operated and she is just fine.

You can't operate on everything, dumbass. How about you go and fix a child born with severe chromosomal abnormalities. How about you operate on a child born with Encephalocele. Lets see you wave your magical fucking wand and help kids born with degenerative disorders. You can't. We don't live in fairyland, not everything can fixed by modern medicine.

First of all i am not christian or very religous at all.

Oh man...you're going to hell now...

substand

Dec 2nd, 2004, 6:31 PM

I thought the rise of Hitler pretty much killed the eugenics movement.

RavenWhitefang

Dec 2nd, 2004, 6:39 PM

This reminds me of Dr, Kevorkian (sp) the guy who was doing assisted suicides for the elderly who were tired of the pain they had to live with *And is fighting to get out of jail currently*. Although very sad and heartbreaking, if it was an instance where there was nothing else that could be done, and the diagnosis was death, after a certain amount of reasonable time with out progression of the disease, affliction whatever, it should be allowed. Thats why people have Living Wills, for those instances where they are beyond help and on life support, they simply turn off the machines and let them go, I dont see this as anything different.

Skippy

Dec 2nd, 2004, 7:37 PM

I am both a parent, and I once had to make the decision to have someone removed from life support after they had suffered a major stroke that left them with less than 1/4 brain function. It is the most difficult decision you will ever have to make in your life, and not something you will take lightly.

I had already read the article before seeing it here, and I personally don't have a problem with what they are doing. Mercy is at the heart of the matter, and while I can understand people's fears about abuse, I do have to say that I have witnessed some people sentenced to lives of hell as a barely congitive vegetable in constant pain and heavily medicated.

Keeblergiant

Dec 2nd, 2004, 7:50 PM

I thought the rise of Hitler pretty much killed the eugenics movement.

Euthanization and eugenics are quite different. Eugenics deals with stopping/killing people from/to prevent them from breeding with other people in order to create a more advanced race. Euthanization deals with killing people in order to keep them from suffering. One has a humane aspect to it, the other has doesn't.

substand

Dec 3rd, 2004, 12:03 PM

So one has good intentions for the individual (kill them out of mercy) and the other doesn't (kill them for the good of the human race), but they have similar results... we're talking about only killing off the little kids here, not those that make it to adulthood?

I guess I should have directed the eugenics comment more at your own "you go and fix a child born with severe chromosomal abnormalities." Sounds like cleansing the gene pool to me.

What if some of these things are natures way of helping us evolve, and we are stopping evolution by "cleansing" our gene pool?

If this were simply "they have no chance of living if we 'pull the plug,'" then fine... pull the plug. So far it does seem like that (in the cases mentioned in the article) although it doesn't seem legal ("a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives "), but some of the stuff you are talking about is way over the top.

There's a big problem with this, and that is we're talking about "people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives."

If I'm in a coma its one thing. If I'm a newborn who's going to end up retarded, its quite another.

RavenWhitefang

Dec 3rd, 2004, 1:21 PM

If I'm in a coma its one thing. If I'm a newborn who's going to end up retarded, its quite another.

Quite right Subs, the way I had imagined it would have been, was if it was for those purposes of the person/child was in serious pain and suffering, and had no other option. There is no reason to do this to a healthy child if there is some sort of retardation. That would just be an easy/shitty out for parents or caregivers that have taken care of said person so long that they couldnt handle it financially, or emotionally anymore.

Death Rattle

Dec 6th, 2004, 11:34 AM

Quite right Subs, the way I had imagined it would have been, was if it was for those purposes of the person/child was in serious pain and suffering, and had no other option. There is no reason to do this to a healthy child if there is some sort of retardation. That would just be an easy/shitty out for parents or caregivers that have taken care of said person so long that they couldnt handle it financially, or emotionally anymore.
Finally someone with some sense of right and wrong. :headbang:

Hate_Republicrats

Dec 7th, 2004, 12:15 AM

No government should be in charge of who lives and who dies. This program will probably be misused like most government programs.

dutchie

Dec 7th, 2004, 12:54 AM

Finally someone with some sense of right and wrong. :headbang:
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! With that remark you took back about 90% from your original post. How conveniently opportunistic...

substand

Dec 7th, 2004, 3:46 PM

No government should be in charge of who lives and who dies.

Now you're an islamist or what? Who exactly should be in charge of who lives and who dies? Lets just leave it to God and whoever has the guts to go around killing people... don't worry about getting murderers off the street. Hey, at least they're not "government" by name, even if they would be by deed.

DontBeAfraid

Dec 7th, 2004, 5:44 PM

Subs you know he meant he was anti-death sentence..... You sound more and more like rush everyday. INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting your opponents views.....

Hate_Republicrats

Dec 7th, 2004, 6:18 PM

Now you're an islamist or what? Who exactly should be in charge of who lives and who dies?
Islamist what the hell is that? My point is govenments kill the innocence at times for political reasons because they are corrupt. Any coward can go around killing people that does not take guts.

Death Rattle

Dec 8th, 2004, 2:20 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! With that remark you took back about 90% from your original post. How conveniently opportunistic...
You make no sense. It is excactly the kind of point i was trying to make. You just can't stand knowing in your heart that this practice is morally reprehencable. :2fu:

lotrfan55345

Dec 8th, 2004, 3:04 PM

You make no sense. It is excactly the kind of point i was trying to make. You just can't stand knowing in your heart that this practice is morally reprehencable. :2fu:

You really do have an overinflated ego.

Raven wants to euthanize if the child has pain and suffering, but you don't want euthinization at all. Did you change your opinion the revert back to your old one?

Death Rattle

Dec 8th, 2004, 3:25 PM

You really do have an overinflated ego.

Raven wants to euthanize if the child has pain and suffering, but you don't want euthinization at all. Did you change your opinion the revert back to your old one?
I never said none at all. You must have misunderstood my original post.

RavenWhitefang

Dec 8th, 2004, 4:04 PM

Raven wants to euthanize if the child has pain and suffering

only if there is a certain death issue for the child/person. we all have some pain with healing, but if there is no chance for survival period, there is no reason for making them endure it. a very heartwrenching decision for anyone.

substand

Dec 8th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Subs you know he meant he was anti-death sentence..... You sound more and more like rush everyday. INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting your opponents views.....

I wish I sounded like Rush... then maybe I'd be raking in the millions instead of posting on this stupid message board =)... actually, I'd probably still post here.

I didn't actually know which side he was on. To me it sounded just like antigovernment no matter what (due to some other posts I had read before that one). I'm not too fond of the death penalty either, but I thought it sounded like "let the hospital decide when its ok to kill someone, not the government in any instance." Therefore, I felt the need to illustrate why it might be useful for the government to put some sort of bar up that needed to be met to kill someone. In my usual unillustrative way, I accomplished nothing of the sort, apparently. So my apologies, but I represented the view as the extreme of what I saw it as.

Islamist what the hell is that? My point is govenments kill the innocence at times for political reasons because they are corrupt. Any coward can go around killing people that does not take guts.

Islamists would only have a state run by lost Imam (who is the only one to really know how to govern according to God's laws) and thus government wouldn't decide who does the killing, but basically God would.

substand

Feb 10th, 2005, 3:33 PM

14 weeks premature baby finally goes home, probably will live normal life:

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,82675,00.html

From 230g, she's grown to 2.7kg

THE tiniest baby in the world - who weighed less than a soda can - has survived.

She went home on Tuesday after nearly six months of care in a hospital in Maywood, Illinois in the US.

Rumaisa Rahman's future 'is very good,' said Dr Jonathan Muraskas, who provided care for the tiny girl and her larger twin sister, Hiba.

Rumaisa is expected to have normal physical and mental development.

thats over 3 months early!